Energy firms and insurers retreat from some green investments, column says
Decisions by BP, Shell, Lloyd’s and Ineos are cited as evidence of a wider retreat from the UK’s net‑zero push and a test for Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s 2030 target
Major British and international energy companies and parts of the insurance market have scaled back or abandoned several green projects, a newspaper column published this week asserted, reigniting debate over the economic viability of the UK’s net‑zero ambitions and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s target of a fossil‑fuel‑free grid by 2030.
The column in the Daily Mail, written by Dominic Lawson, catalogued a series of corporate and market decisions it said indicate a retreat from some forms of “green” investment. It cited BP’s recent shift away from renewables, Shell’s cancellation of a large biofuel plant in Rotterdam, Lloyd’s of London’s reversal of a net‑zero underwriting pledge and an announcement by Ineos Energy that it had paused investments in the UK.
The column quoted a string of senior executives and industry figures. It said BP’s chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, told investors the company had “completely decapitalised renewables.” It reported that Shell’s chief executive, Wael Sawan, cited high costs and shifting policy mandates in explaining the decision to drop the Rotterdam sustainable aviation fuel project, which the column said remained several times more expensive than conventional kerosene. The column also said Lloyd’s chief executive Patrick Tiernan abandoned a market pledge to reach net zero by 2050 and that Sir Jim Ratcliffe told colleagues Ineos Energy had “stopped investing in Britain” because of what he described as unstable fiscal and regulatory conditions for natural resources and energy.
The piece linked those corporate moves to UK policy choices, arguing that measures intended to accelerate decarbonisation have increased costs for households and industry. It noted that, according to the column’s account, the government this summer authorised a maximum strike price of £113 per megawatt‑hour for new offshore wind projects — a figure the column contrasted with an average wholesale electricity price of about £72/MWh last year and with lower future cost projections cited by some analysts.
The column invoked wider critiques of the UK approach to net zero, saying critics view some policy steps as “performative” and pointing to examples such as the increased use of imported wood at the Drax power station as evidence that emissions reduction on UK soil has, in part, been achieved by moving emissions or emissions‑intensive activities overseas. It also cited commentary from American economist Noah Smith, reported on his Substack, arguing that high energy costs tied to a rapid shift away from domestically produced fossil fuels have prompted a political backlash.
Industry responses to the cited decisions have been mixed outside the column. Executives have pointed to commercial realities: the capital intensity of some renewable technologies, fluctuating government mandates for biofuels, and the need to satisfy shareholders. Insurers and some investors have also said they must balance long‑term climate targets against short‑term market exposures and the demands of underwriting profitable business.
Critics of the government’s approach, as relayed in the column, argued those policy choices risked jobs in sectors such as the North Sea oil and gas industry and could raise energy costs for manufacturers and households. The column said some figures in industry and unions considered the combination of energy policy and market developments a threat to competitiveness in energy‑intensive industries.
Supporters of the government’s decarbonisation agenda point to longer‑term goals: reduced greenhouse‑gas emissions, the potential for innovation and new green industries, and energy security derived from diversified low‑carbon sources. The Labour Party has made net‑zero and a transition away from fossil fuels central elements of its platform; Ed Miliband has set an ambition to move the national grid away from fossil fuels by 2030. The column described internal party dynamics, saying Miliband remains a popular figure within Labour and that his stance on energy policy is a point of contention within the governing party.
Observers said the recent series of corporate announcements highlights tensions between the costs and risks of rapid decarbonisation, commercial returns for energy companies, and the political imperative to keep energy affordable and secure. Analysts and policymakers are watching whether the cited shifts herald a longer‑term rebalancing of corporate investment strategies, changes in government support mechanisms for renewables, or adjustments to the UK’s broader approach to energy and industrial policy.
The column brought together these developments as part of a broader argument that momentum behind some net‑zero strategies is slowing, but independent analysts note that corporate decisions vary by company, technology and region, and that global energy investment patterns remain complex. Energy companies, insurers and governments continue to weigh the economic costs of transitions against climate commitments and market opportunities as the UK and other countries navigate the trade‑offs involved in decarbonising energy systems.